Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010.

List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients

 * Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list, with proper references and I think it meets all the other criteria required for review. Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Just a few minor technical points:
 * emdashes (for example in Korean War section) should be unspaced according to WP:DASH;
 * Done--Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't believe this one has been covered off on yet. There are still spaces between the emdashes in the Korean War section. To fix it, you need to remove the non breaking space mark up code. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Know I think I have it.--Kumioko (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * in the lead, there is irregular capitalisation of the word "As" (as in as of);
 * Done This was due to the use of the as of template but I removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * in the lead, as you mention the first recipient, would it make sense to mention the last recipient?
 * Done- I expanded the lead a little and added this to it. --Kumioko (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * there is some inconsistency in style regarding US and U.S.;
 * "is there a preference to which is used? --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, if using American English (which this article does) U.S. would be preferred, but I don't think it is required. I normally use "US" myself, but I don't think it matters so long as there is consistency. Manual of Style (abbreviations) might be able to help. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done --Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * there is some inconsistency in how you deal with numbers greater than 10. In the lead you use numbers (e.g. "31 have been awarded", but elsewhere you use letters (e.g. in World War II "twenty-four Asian American awardees, twenty-one...".
 * Is there a preference to how these should be handled. I believe I read something were numbers less than ten were spelled out but numbers larger than ten were displayed as numbers. I can't seem to find that at the moment though. --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that you are correct. Manual of Style (dates and numbers) states that the general rule is to spell numbers below ten, and use numbers for 10 and above. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done- I think I fixed these. --Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think it should be okay. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All my concerns have been dealt with, so I have changed my comments to support. Well done. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Support. Well written, I have a few things. Arsonal (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Add a comma after "September 17, 2009" as the numbers 2009 and 31 next to each other would look slightly awkward if the inline citation were not there.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be advisable to wikilink the first instance of "Asian American" so as to provide context of the term's scope.
 * Done. --Kumioko (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that some of the other Medal of Honor lists contain a column for "Place of Action". I would like to see the information on this list as well.
 * Done - I also linked all the locations that had a page. --Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The World War II section mentions: "Of the Asian American recipients during World War II, only two were officers." Forgive me for not being knowledgeable, but at what rank does a military personnel become an officer? This might need to be clarified.
 * Done. Rather than add a huge chunk of text that only loosely related to the topic and was information I added this as a note. --Kumioko (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The explanation is nice, but it still doesn't tell me which two persons are officers because I know nothing about rank hierarchy. Arsonal (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I clarified it some more but please let me know if you want me to change anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I tweaked it to reduce redundancy on Inouye's information. Arsonal (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is ref 22 needed? It seems like additional information and doesn't connect well with the main prose. Arsonal (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Well written, although I did notice a disambig link when I ran the dab checker, can you locate that and remove it if at all possible? TomStar81 (Talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.